Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,217
Sell all of them except for one, invest in mutual funds, and hope the stock market doesn't go down ?
I’m dain bramaged (brain damaged) when it comes to working with my hands.
I can also add that there are two types of wives in this regard. My first wife understood only "I need" not "I want". The wonderful woman I call my "forever wife" says "If it makes you happy go ahead." Our bills are paid, our daughter is thorough college and married and doing well. Life is pretty good overall. That makes a big difference.
I’m dain bramaged (brain damaged) when it comes to working with my hands.
Just one more....So that brings me to the question of “how many ARs are too many?”.
The only limit to how may ARs you can have should be based on your bank account.
Plus, though our state political system may be a den of thieves and vipers, they are not stupid.
It would be political suicide for the MD government to send our law enforcement into two-way rifle ranges day-in and day-out in order to confiscate firearms.
Many people are not afraid to fight the government, and God help those that are sent to face them.
(for the FBI/NSA/ATF agent reading these threads, I am speaking in purely hypothetical terms)
While you can never predict what a court can do, the strongest argument is not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution's prohibition of ex-post facto laws and Bills of Attainder. The government cannot make illegal what was legal when you first purchased it...that would violate the prohibition on ex-post facto laws...but that has happened in the past and anti-freedom courts have upheld that. NYC did exactly that some years back. It demonstrates how important it is to have truly Constitutionally grounded judges on the local, state and federal benches and not political hacks. It's a constant fight that unfortunately will likely never go away. It's behind the state ban on previously owned"assault rifles" and 10+ magazines...the state couldn't ban previously owned examples due to such a Constitutional prohibition...no matter how much many would support that. That pesky Constitution simply keeps getting in their way.
As far as "too many"...it's none of the government's business how many you own as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.
No, it's not. You seriously need to acquaint yourself with this basic legal concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_lawThat is exactly an ex-post facto law.
No, a bill of attainder is when legislature declares X people _guilty_ of a crime without a trial. Your Wikipedia quote even says this, so I'm not sure what the confusion is.That would be an example of a Bill of Attainder.
AR's are actually pretty easy to build. torque wrench and a vise and you're gtg. the fallacy though is building yourself is not necessarily cheaper, and actually prob more expensive, just that you can pick every single piece you want vs what the manufacturer of the complete rifle used. and places like rainier arms will assemble all your parts for a nominal fee, i think $100, if you want the best of both worlds.
It's simple math, you have a dozen AR 9s, 10s, 15s etc, the government bans 10 of them, how many do you still have?
all of them
One thing that practically never gets reported is the mass non-complance after bans, think there were less than 5% compliance after CT required registration of ARs and < 10rd mags. They estimate Australia had about a 10% compliance after outright bans. The problem isn't neccesarily that a ban passes, it's what comes next, usually a big jump in crime, and a massive attack on rights, best thing to have then is a potent firearm, even if it happens to be illegal.
No, it's not. You seriously need to acquaint yourself with this basic legal concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
The government is NOT prosecuting you for your purchase. They are prosecuting you for owning it after some future date. When that future date comes, the law is in effect; your actions are not being _post-facto_ criminalized. You made the decision to not be in compliance with the law.
No, a bill of attainder is when legislature declares X people _guilty_ of a crime without a trial. Your Wikipedia quote even says this, so I'm not sure what the confusion is.
Ex-Post-Facto: Congress passing a law in 2017 that makes a crime of buying an AR in 2010. You get a trial (with a jury of your peers).
Bill of Attainder: Congress passing a law in 2017 that declares all people found with an AR will go to jail for 20 years _with no trial_.